alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      13,159,000
<SECURITIES>                                15,669,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,030,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              66,396,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,466,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       471,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,342,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                66,396,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,781,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            46,327,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,499,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (34,896,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (34,896,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (34,896,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.78)


</TABLE>
#### § 408.412 What kinds of evidence of age do you need to give us?

For a description of the kinds of evidence of age you may need to give us, see § 416.802 of this chapter.
Exhibit 18.1

                    Letter re Change in Accounting Principle

Mr. Thomas E. Moloney
Chief Financial Officer
John Hancock Financial Services, Inc.
John Hancock Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02117

Dear Sir:

Note 1 of Notes to the Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements of John
Hancock Financial Services, Inc. included in its Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2001 describes a change in the method of accounting for the
recognition of deferred gains and losses considered in the calculation of the
annual expense for its employee pension plans under SFAS No. 87, Employers'
Accounting for Pensions, and for its postretirement health and welfare plans
under SFAS No. 106, Employers' Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than
Pensions. The Company changed the method of recognizing gains and losses from
deferral within a 10% corridor and amortization of gains outside this corridor
over the future working careers of the participants to a deferral within a 5%
corridor and amortization of gains and losses outside this corridor over the
future working careers of the participants. There are no authoritative criteria
for determining a "preferable" method of accounting for the recognition of gains
and losses from deferrals for determining the annual expense for employee
pension plans and postretirement health and welfare plans based upon the
particular circumstances; however, we conclude that such change in the method of
accounting is to an acceptable alternative method which, based on your business
judgment to make this change and for the stated reason, is preferable in your
circumstance. We have not conducted an audit in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of any financial statements of
the Company as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2000,
and therefore we do not express any opinion on any financial statements of John
Hancock Financial Services, Inc. subsequent to that date.


                                              Very truly yours,


                                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
May 11, 2001
#### § 616.3 Interstate cooperation.

Each State agency will cooperate with every other State agency by implementing such rules, regulations, and procedures as may be prescribed for the operation of this arrangement. Each State agency shall identify the paying and the transferring State with respect to Combined-Wage Claims filed in its State.
Exhibit 32.2

                    Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                           As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                           Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Presidential
     Realty Corporation (the "Company") for the period ending June 30, 2004, as
     filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
     "Report"), I, Thomas Viertel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
     certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
     906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or
             15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
             material respects, the financial condition and the results of
             operations of the Company.


                                      Presidential Realty Corporation

                                      By:/s/ Thomas Viertel
                                      ----------------------
                                      Thomas Viertel
                                      Chief Financial Officer




         Date: August 11, 2004
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Order No. 1755]

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

*Whereas,*                     the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (74 FR 1170, 01/12/09; correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09; 75 FR 71069-71070, 11/22/10) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of general-purpose zones;                

*Whereas,*                     the Greater Rockford Airport Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 176, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket 62-2010, filed 10/26/2010) for authority to expand the service area of the zone to include portions of LaSalle and Putnam Counties, as described in the application, adjacent to the Rockford Customs and Border Protection port of entry;                

*Whereas,*                     notice inviting public comment was given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (75 FR 67081-67082, 11/1/2010) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                

*Whereas,*                     the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest;                

*Now, therefore,*                     the Board hereby orders:                

The application to reorganize FTZ 176 to expand the service area under the alternative site framework is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall general-purpose zone project.

Signed at Washington, DC this 18th day of April 2011.

Ronald K. Lorentzen,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

ATTEST:

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-9854 Filed 4-21-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<TABLE>

                                                                                                               EXHIBIT 12
                                               PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP
                                 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                                Dollars in Millions



                                                NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                   SEPTEMBER 30,                   YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
<CAPTION>
                                              ---------------------  -----------------------------------------------------
                                                1997        1996        1996        1995      1994       1993        1992
                                              ---------   ---------  ------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>       <C>        <C>          <C>
Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before
   Income Taxes, Extraordinary Loss and
   Cumulative Effect of Accounting Changes    $  (734)    $ 1,459    $  1,798    $  1,611   $ 1,793    $   201    $  1,782
     Add:  Interest Expense                       335         265         455         442       455        509         506
          Dividends on Preferred Securities        60          40          60           -         -          -          -
          1/3 Rental Expense                       57          40          51          31        43         40          44
                                              ---------   --------   ---------   ---------  --------   --------  ----------

     Adjusted Earnings                        $  (282)    $ 1,804    $  2,364    $  2,084   $ 2,291    $   750    $  2,332
                                              =========   ========   =========   =========  ========   ========  ==========

Total Interest Charges                        $   406     $   341    $    455    $    442   $   455    $   509    $    510
Dividends on Preferred Securities                  60          40          60           -         -          -          -
1/3 Rental Expense                                 57          40          51          31        43         40          44
                                              ---------   --------   ---------   ---------  --------   --------  ----------

     Adjusted Fixed Charges                   $   523     $   421    $    566    $    473   $   498    $   549    $    554
                                              =========   ========   =========   =========  ========   ========  =========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges              (0.54)        4.29       4.18        4.41      4.60       1.37       4.21


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0343 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILLIAM JAMES HARNING,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 12 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 4 2021

06/04/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0343
#### Onofrio Curro, Respondent, v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Appellant.

Motion granted amending order of reversal entered the 11th day of March, 1914, so as to provide for the granting of a new trial, instead of judgment dismissing the complaint. (See *ante,*p. 926.)
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Characterization ofpreferential ground-water seepage from a chlorinated hydrocarbon-contaminatedaquifer to West Branch Canal Creek, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 2002-04**
 
Report
 
Appendices: One | Two | Three A | Three B | Three C | Three D | Four
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.42/4-4:2006-5233
Item Number:0624-B-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000606988
 
April 18, 2018
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 568

 574

 616

 771

 841

 935

 944

 1,009

 1,114

 898

 774

 672

 600

 496

 426

 415

 431

 420

 467

 512

 593

 496

 558

 491

 537

 484

 455

 423

 435

 377

 219

 223

 223

 212

 238

 222

 237

 241

 225

 215

 217

 216

 220

 233

 225

 217

 220

 208

 216

 215

 206

 198

 193

 196

 199

 203

 198

 195

 193

 186

 353

 343

 355

 379

 414

 446

 470

 507

 539

 447

 385

 371

 358

 344

 331

 334

 332

 314

 322

 328

 338

 332

 318

 320

 319

 313

 309

 305

 304

 272

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 10, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
### §336. Report of minor violations

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to report for prosecution, or for the institution of libel or injunction proceedings, minor violations of this chapter whenever he believes that the public interest will be adequately served by a suitable written notice or warning.

(June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §309, formerly §306, 52 Stat. 1045; renumbered §309, Pub. L. 102–282, §2, May 13, 1992, 106 Stat. 150.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of Federal Security Administrator to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare [now Health and Human Services], and of Food and Drug Administration in the Department of Agriculture to Federal Security Agency, see notes set out under section 321 of this title.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of First Keystone Corporation (the “Corporation”) for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Diane C.A. Rosler, Chief Financial Officer,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Corporation as of and for the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





/s/ Diane C.A. Rosler

Diane C.A. Rosler

Senior Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer



August 8, 2012











The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not
being filed as part of the report or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to First Keystone Corporation and will be retained by First Keystone Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §1643j. Authorization of appropriations

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to enable the Commission to pay its administrative expenses incurred in carrying out its functions under this subchapter.

(Mar. 10, 1950, ch. 54, title V, §511, as added Pub. L. 88–666, Oct. 16, 1964, 78 Stat. 1113; amended Pub. L. 89–262, §5, Oct. 19, 1965, 79 Stat. 988.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1965—Pub. L. 89–262 redesignated subsec. (a) as the complete section, struck out limitation of amount of appropriations to aggregate amount of net proceeds realized from sale or liquidation of property of Government of Cuba and use of funds to pay administrative expenses of the Treasury Department in carrying out its functions, and eliminated subsec. (b) providing for vesting and liquidation of Cuban property.
### §2678. Reduction in earmarks if appropriations are less than authorizations

If the amount appropriated (or made available in the event of a sequestration order issued pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177; [2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.])) for a fiscal year pursuant to any authorization of appropriations provided by an Act other than an appropriation Act is less than the authorization amount and a provision of that Act provides that a specified amount of the authorization amount shall be available only for a certain purpose, then the amount so specified shall be deemed to be reduced for that fiscal year to the amount which bears the same ratio to the specified amount as the amount appropriated (or made available in the event of sequestration) bears to the authorization amount.

(Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 841, title I, §11, as added Pub. L. 101–246, title I, §106, Feb. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 20.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, referred to in text, is title II of Pub. L. 99–177, Dec. 12, 1985, 99 Stat. 1038, which enacted chapter 20 (§900 et seq.) and sections 654 to 656 of Title 2, The Congress, amended sections 602, 622, 631 to 642, and 651 to 653 of Title 2, sections 1104 to 1106, and 1109 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and section 911 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, repealed section 661 of Title 2, enacted provisions set out as notes under section 900 of Title 2 and section 911 of Title 42, and amended provisions set out as a note under section 621 of Title 2. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 900 of Title 2 and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2678, acts Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 841, title I, §11, 70 Stat. 892; Sept. 8, 1960, Pub. L. 86–723, §50, 74 Stat. 847; renumbered title I, Aug. 24, 1982, Pub. L. 97–241, title II, §202(a), 96 Stat. 282; Oct. 19, 1984, Pub. L. 98–533, title III, §303(b), 98 Stat. 2711, related to use of Government-owned vehicles for security purposes for travel by the Deputy Secretary of State, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–550, §2(d), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3070.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Alberto RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50275

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 8, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Victor M. Valdes, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mario Alberto Rodriguez appeals his conditional guilty plea conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. He asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop. Because the officer had probable cause to believe a traffic violation was occurring, the initial stop of Rodriguez’s vehicle was reasonable. *See Whren v. United States,*517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). Because the officer had not finished writing out the warning *554when he questioned Rodriguez and requested consent to search the vehicle, Rodriguez was not improperly detained beyond the scope of the initial stop. *See Florida v. Royer,*460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983). The questions asked of Rodriguez were permissible. *See United States v. Brigham,*382 F.3d 500, 507-08 (5th Cir.2004)(en banc).

Rodriguez has not established that the district court’s finding that his consent was voluntary was clearly erroneous. *See United States v. Dortch,*199 F.3d 193, 201 (5th Cir.1999). Because Rodriguez was subject to a traffic stop, the officer was not required to provide him with the warnings pursuant to *Miranda v. Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), before questioning Rodriguez and asking for consent to search the vehicle. *See Berkemer v. McCarty,*468 U.S. 420, 438-40, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Rodriguez’s assertion that the district court improperly revived the “silver platter” doctrine is misplaced. *Cf. Elkins v. United States,*364 U.S. 206, 212-13, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960). Likewise, his assertion that the district court should have applied Texas law to determine whether consent to search was validly given is improper. *See id.*at 224, 80 S.Ct. 1437. Because Rodriguez has not established that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### § 404.922 Notice of a reconsidered determination.

We shall mail a written notice of the reconsidered determination to the parties at their last known address. We shall state the specific reasons for the determination and tell you and any other parties of the right to a hearing. If it is appropriate, we will also tell you and any other parties how to use the expedited appeals process.

[45 FR 52081, Aug. 5, 1980. Redesignated at 51 FR 302, Jan. 3, 1986]